ACIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. REKHA HIRALAL MULCHANDANI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection. The addition of Rs. 1,81,000/- was upheld as the assessee failed to provide verifiable positive material to controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 65 Lakhs, while the assessee's cross-objection challenged the upholding of an addition of Rs. 1,81,000/-. The addition of Rs. 1,81,000/- was made by the AO for cash deposits in the bank account not reflected in the assessee's cash book.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 1,81,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account is justified. Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable considering the tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JM Smt.
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
Smt. Rekha Hiralal Mulchandani This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)21, Mumbai dated 19/12/2016 for A.Y.2013-14 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.
In this appeal filed by Revenue, Revenue is aggrieved for deleting addition of Rs.65 Lakhs made u/s.54, whereas in the Cross objection assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for upholding addition of Rs.1,81,000/- u/s.68 of the IT Act.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving opportunity nor any adjournment petition was filed. Accordingly Bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing learned DR and considering the material placed on record.
At the outset, learned DR submitted that tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue is less than Rs.20 Lakhs, accordingly the appeal so filed by the Revneue deserves to be dismissed in view of the CBDT Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018.
In the Cross Objection, assessee is aggrieved for confirming the addition of Rs.1,81,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act.
We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that addition so made by the AO u/s.68 in respect of cash deposited in the bank account. The AO noted from the bank statement that there are various cash deposits during the year which were not reflected in the cash book of the assessee company. Shri Mahesh Smt. Rekha Hiralal Mulchandani Mulchandani whose statement was recorded by the AO could not reconcile the same. The deposits were as follows: Date Amount 11.10.2012 32000 19.10.2012 50000 30.11.2012 50000 11.02.2013 49000 Total 1,81,000
By the impugned order, CIT(A) upheld the addition after observing as under:- “5.3. I have considered the submissions and paper book filed. The personal cash book does refer to the impugned deposits in the New India Cooperative Bank sb account no 13510 of the appellant at Goregaon branch, Mumbai. However, the personal cash book has mainly credits of Rs 12500 per month as salary from Rahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. It is the claim of the appellant that the deposit is out of the opening balance in personal cash book of Rs 435,600/- It is noted that the personal balance sheet of the appellant is not filed in the paper book filed in the appellate proceedings. Such cash balance is not reflected in the schedules of the return of income / filed electronically. Thus the opening balance claimed cannot be verified from any contemporaneous records of information filed. A perusal of the personal cash book statement shows that the cash balance as on 20.03.2013 is a negative cash balance of Rs 11637/- even if the opening balance is considered as Rs 4,35,600/- This clearly shows that the personal cash book is not reliable. In these facts the addition made by assessing officer is upheld and ground of appeal no 2 is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 54
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs Manan Arati Patel, AhmedabadITA 923/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rohitbhai Jivrambhai Patel, Vadodara vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), VadodaraITA 679/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026